I support the wording of the Bill on the basis of clarity and certainty. It would be possible for a judge to explain to a jury what legal duty the defendant is alleged to have been under. I believe that it would be very difficult to explain to a jury what moral duty the defendant would be under. It is such a broad expression, which depends on all sorts of concepts, that it would not be within the compass of the judge’s direction to explain what the moral duty was. For that reason I support the wording of the Bill.
Fraud Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Fraud Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1427 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:25:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263128
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263128
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_263128